Manyasa (Suing as Personal Representative of the Mapesa Eshitemi) v Mapesa & another (Environment and Land Appeal E026 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1127 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kakamega court refused to reinstate an appeal struck out for repeated missed deadlines, ruling that persistent non-compliance is not a 'human error' that review can excuse.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant has met the threshold for grant of orders of review of the orders of 23rd June 2025 striking out the appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant met the threshold for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
The application was dismissed; the applicant did not establish discovery of new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or any sufficient reason, and the application was a attempt to excuse deliberate and persistent non-compliance with court orders.
The court set out the three grounds for review under Section 80 and Order 45(1): discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, plus absence of unreasonable delay. The appellant's only explanation was 'human error' or a blunder. The court found the record showed repeated extensions, over five mentions, and a default clause in the orders of 12th March 2025 that was still not complied with, with no reason given. Such flagrant disregard of court orders and judicial time is deliberate, not inadvertent, and merits no review.
Legal principles established
#- An application for review will only be allowed on strong grounds, particularly if its effect will amount to reopening the case afresh.
- 'Any other sufficient reason' for review refers to grounds analogous to error apparent on the face of the record and discovery of new and important matter.
- Persistent non-compliance with court orders, despite extensions and a default clause, is not a 'human error' warranting review; it cannot be rewarded with an order of review.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 14th July 2025 is dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction over the court's own order of 23rd June 2025 striking out the appeal)
Relief refused
#Review, setting aside, vacating, varying or discharging of the orders of 23rd June 2025 and reinstatement of the appeal for hearing on merit
The appellant's non-compliance was persistent and deliberate, not a mere human error or blunder; no reason was given for the failure to file and serve the record of appeal and submissions within the 60 days allowed, and such conduct cannot be rewarded with an order of review.
Costs of the application
The court declined to award costs to the respondent.
Costs
No order as to costs - each party to bear their own costs of the application.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the premises, I find no reason whatsoever, for reviewing the orders of 23rd June 2025.Therefore, I find and hold that the application dated 14th July 2025 lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. I make no order as to costs.
the consistency with which the appellant and his counsel were unwilling to comply with court orders issued in this matter is not a human error as alleged, but points to the fiagrant disregard for court orders and precious judicial time
While this court does not expect or demand perfection from the appellant who is human, it expects respect for, and compliance with court orders.
Any other suficient reason for the purposes of review refers to the grounds analogous to the other two (for example error apparent on the face of the record and discovery of new and important matter).
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the court or the case number of the matter; the court is only identifiable as sitting at Kakamega.
Date spelling error in the delivery clause: 'FEBUARY' instead of 'February', and the year 2026 post-dates the application of 14th July 2025, which is internally consistent but the delivery date is unusually far after filing.
Inconsistency in the judgment between reference to orders of '23rd March 2025' and the orders of '12th March 2025' when describing the default clause.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Manyasa (Suing as Personal Representative of the Mapesa Eshitemi) v Mapesa & another (Environment and Land Appeal E026 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 1127 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1127/eng@2026-02-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.